Populism and Liberal Democracies: Why Palin’S Populism Won’T Work

University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons CUREJ - College Undergraduate Research Electronic Journal College of Arts and Sciences 2010 Populism and Liberal Democracies: Why Palin’s Populism Won’t Work Rebecca Greenfield University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/curej Part of the Political Theory Commons Recommended Citation Greenfield, Rebecca, "Populism and Liberal Democracies: Why Palin’s Populism Won’t Work" 01 January 2010. CUREJ: College Undergraduate Research Electronic Journal, University of Pennsylvania, https://repository.upenn.edu/curej/119. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/curej/119 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Populism and Liberal Democracies: Why Palin’s Populism Won’t Work Keywords Social Sciences, Political Sciences, Jeffrey Green, Green, Jeffrey Disciplines Political Theory This article is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/curej/119 Populism and Liberal Democracies: Why Palin’s Populism Won’t Work By Rebecca Greenfield Advised by: Professor Jeffrey Green Senior Thesis in Political Science The University of Pennsylvania April 9, 2010 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………3 II. Defining Populism...………………………………………………………….……...……..9 III. The Populist Leader………..……………………………………………..………..…….21 IV. Analyzing Populism as a Democratic Mode of Governance…..………………………...29 V. Populist Conceptions of ‘the People’………………………………………………...…...37 VI. Conclusions…………………..…………………………………………………………..47 VII. Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………….50 3 I. INTRODUCTION Eight months after losing the 2008 election, ex-Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin quit her job as Alaskan governor. While this might signify her total removal from politics, the months following her withdrawal Palin defied this notion thrusting herself onto the national scene, publishing her memoir Going Rogue and beginning a nation-wide (self) promotional tour. Given her heightened visibility, the media has (not surprisingly) scrutinized Palin’s every move concluding that she is a populist. The New Yorker ranks Palin’s “insistent ordinariness” among other famed American populists such as William Jennings Bryan who “have always been divisive and polarizing. 1 Their [populists] job is not to win national elections but to carry the torch and inspire the faithful.” 2 On the other hand, Newsweek characterizes her among a trend of “faux populists [that] feast on emotions—anxiety, anger, resentment—that intensify in hard times. more accurately described as plain old reactionaries.” 3 The Daily Beast calls Palin’s appeal to the ‘common American people’ less than genuine as she tours the country in her private jet. 4 The media cannot quite figure out Palin or populism; is she really a populist? And if so, what does that mean for American politics? Populism has characterized various political figures throughout time and throughout the world. In the late 1800’s The People’s Party – an American populist party – emerged because of agrarian unrest. Also in the 19 th Century, Russia saw populism manifest as a reaction to 1 Sam Tanenhaus, “North Star: Populism, Politics and the power of Sarah Palin,” The New Yorker , December 7, 2009. 2 Ibid. 3 Jonathan Alter. “Enter the Foxulists: The Faux Populism of Palin, Dobbs, and Beck,” Newsweek , December 7, 2009. 4 "Palin's Bus Hoax," The Daily Beast, entry posted November 29, 2009, http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-29/palins-bus-hoax/ (accessed April 6, 2010). 4 Alexander IIs emancipation of the serfs. 5 Latin America has experienced waves of populism beginning with Argentina’s Juan Perón, who created a lasting populist movement appealing to Argentina’s working class. Recently, Latin America has experienced another populist surge via leaders such as Bolivia’s Evo Morales, Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and Argentina’s Kirchner administration. The term ‘populist’ has even infiltrated contemporary American politics with the emergence of Sarah Palin. Though all of these leaders and movements, along with others, fall under the populist umbrella, academic literature has trouble reaching a consensus on populism’s definition. To understand populism and its leaders, the term “populist” deserves clearer elucidation. When approaching literature on populism, most theories begin describing the difficulty that theorists have had defining the concept. Francisco Panizza opens his book with this disclaimer: “it has become almost a cliché to start writing on populism by lamenting the lack of clarity about the concept and casting doubts about its usefulness for political analysis.” 6 Given that the term populism has been ascribed to many leaders and movements, I do not doubt the utility in understanding the concept. Many theories present a laundry list of criteria, while others narrow the scope to geographic locations or time periods. 7 I agree that these theories do little to theoretically clarify populism, but that does not mean other theories have not identified a theoretical understanding of populism useful for understanding the phenomenon. I hope to present both an accurate overview of various academic attempts to define populism along with my own conceptions of the phenomenon. 5 J.F Conway “Populism in the United States, Russia, and Canada: Explaining the Roots of Canada's Third Parties,” Canadian Journal of Political Science (1978), 113. 6 Francisco Panizza, introduction to Populism and the Mirror of Democracy, by Francisco Panizza (London: Verso, 2005),1. 7 In Francisco Panizza’s Introduction he outlines various definitions that limit populism to geography or time, 2-17. 5 Instead of limiting populism to a specific ideology or time period, my approach analyzes populism as a movement that emerges under certain political conditions. Though certain populist movements share similar economic or political ideologies, what connects all populist governments is not these ideologies, but rather the way in which populism emerges. When a current government fails to address the needs of a large enough constituency it creates conditions ripe for populism. In other words, it is a movement, a reaction to a deficient political system. ‘The people’ feel neglected in some way by their government; the populist leader appeals to this, suggesting s/he can better represent their political desires. Using certain tactics, which I will later outline, these leaders present themselves as separate from the current establishment to win ‘the people’ over. After more clearly defining the parameters of populism, I look at its manifestations through contemporary movements. Specifically I look to Bolivia’s Evo Morales, Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin to demonstrate how they exemplify populism. Using these leaders I show how they embody all features of populist governance. These leaders operate in different contexts yet they all make similar political moves as they attempt to gain power. Both Evo Morales and Hugo Chávez fit into this framework and have both used populist tactics for political success. On the other hand, Palin exemplifies certain aspects of the populist leader, but has not yet demonstrated that she has wooed the American people. Yet, Palin still provides a useful example of the ways populist leaders conceptualize and relate to their people and perhaps in the future Palin will attain the political success of her peers; however, also I go on to argue that Palin – operating in a different political context than her contemporaries – will not have the same successes as other contemporary populists. 6 Given both populism and democracy’s focus on representation and ‘the people’, some theorists argue for populism’s place as a democratic mode of governance. After discussing the features of populism, I address this question of whether populism is a mode of democracy. My analysis discusses the way populism approaches representation, arguing that populism reflects a less democratic type of representation than liberal democracy. However, using Margaret Canovan’s theory of populism as a shadow of democracy demonstrates how populism does fit within liberal democracy. Canovan argues that populism is an inherent part of democracy that manifests when democracy relies too heavily on institutions and not enough of the ideal of ‘the people’. As I explain, I largely agree with Canovan’s reading of populism as a reaction to the inherent elitism within liberal democracy, and therefore an inherent aspect of democracy. I also agree with her ominous terminology ‘shadow’ that implies populism is a negative reaction to liberal democracy’s shortcomings in that the way it ‘corrects’ presents a worse democratic mode of governance than even elitist liberal democracy. As discussed earlier, the idea that populist leaders represent the true will of ‘the people’ gives populism some claim to democratic legitimacy. Looking closer at the ways these leaders believe they represent their people lends insight into the type of democracy populists perpetuate. Populists often refer to ‘the people’, justifying their rule using the rhetoric of ‘the people’. Via speeches, interviews and some secondary sources, I specifically look at how these leaders reference ‘the people’, in what contexts and how they later define ‘the people’. This understanding of the ways populist leaders define their people demonstrates how these leaders relate to their constituencies and whom they

Load more